Chikinhed's Mini Build

[chikinhed]

More testing and dataloging tonight. I have confirmed that the Zeitronix fuel pressure is correct and the small mechanical fuel pressure gauge at the FPR is reading 10 PSI high. Fuel pressure is now set to 51 psi. Next I was cross checking my AFR's because the AEM AFR gauge was reading leaner than the Zeitronics by quite a bit. The Zeitronix is showing really rich during WOT but the test AFR gauge is reading lean. Next time I will compare the test AFR gauge against the AEM AFR gauge to verify it is accurate.

I also double checked the preload on the Turbosmart IWG75, I backed the nuts off and retightened them to insure the correct preload. I did see a higher boost tonight, about 23 psi but with questionable AFR's I was only on it for a second. I'll have to do more testing with better AFR's.

[chikinhed]

I did a boost leak check and found a few decent size leaks. Leaks are fixed and fuel pressure double checked but I ran out of time and couldn't test drive it. Hopefully tomorrow.

[White94RX]

Where were the leaks? Silicone couplers?

[chikinhed]

Where were the leaks? Silicone couplers?

You think the T-bolt clamps are tight until you do a boost leak check at 25 psi or so. I also had a leak at the edge of a weld on my cold pipe. When I close the air valve for the test the pressure goes down very slowly now, she is tight now.

There was enough leaks to keep my crappy little air compressor running constantly during the boost leak test

[White94RX]

Good info. I work on mostly stock cars here at work and haven't had to do a real boost leak test. 10 psi is pretty easy to keep from leaking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chikinhed]

I haven't test driven it yet but I was getting boost taper instead of boost creep. Hopefully the boost leaks were the cause. Poor turbo was trying to pressurize the atmosphere.

[danomite]

Poor turbo was trying to pressurize the atmosphere.

...I could feel it down here in Socal. We're now experiencing a heat wave, thanks to your leaks.

[chikinhed]

I took the car for a drive. I am still getting boost taper with rpm. Fixing the boost leaks didn't fix it. It seems to be heat related. I've also checked the routing of the WG lines and the preload on the IWG actuator.

Next to check will be WG springs. They may be too weak and are being pushed open. The other possibility is the divider in the Steed manifold is slightly too long and is holding the EWG off its seat.

[chikinhed]

I'm at my first autoX event with the EFR 9180. I have no complaints about spool or transient response, it pretty damn good.

[pbonsalb]

What if you are just getting a broad spike rather than taper? Can you set your WG to open earlier to see if that reduces the spike? Or van you adjust the controller sensitivity to reduce taper if you are sure there is taper?

[chikinhed]

I can't get more boost then what it tapers to.

[pbonsalb]

Then run stiffer springs. I am not running as much as you so I have not gotten to the point where there might be an issue. Could having 2 WG be part of the issue? Could you need a bigger line off the turbo or are the controller ports big enough to sufficiently pressurize the actuators?

[chikinhed]

I'm using 1/4" ID silicon hose and 1/4" OD stainless tubing for the WG actuators T'd to each WG.

[pbonsalb]

1/4 should be fine. And you are not using the little plastic Mac valve that came with the EFR that has small ports so none of the fittings are an issue. I'd crank mine up for you but don't think I have the fuel or tune with 60s since I have the CES extreme ported big valve head and schricks. I am sticking to 20 or 21 tops until I have an 80 lb tune.

[chikinhed]

I have peaked at 23 psi so far and I'd like to get it stable at 25 psi if I could.

[bry195]

Imagine 2 air cylinders with the same dynamic and static friction. Same volume and same pressure. They will react to a shared pressure (T) reasonably close if the volume of the airlines is the same. placing the valve and T as close to the cylinders as possible is another precautionary measure. This is how machines doing synchronized fluid power motion start and then you play with it.
A long drop to stability is usuall the (I) or time component in the command/feedback model (PID). The P is how much of a correction to make every I seconds.
tune until instability (overshoot and undershoot the target) then back it off. There is a formula (several) but in the end you stll clean it up by hand most of the time anyways.
it seems like parallel WG would be difficult to setup (not impossible) from the perspective of controlling 2 different things with one set of values.
It seems like serial setup where one leads off the pressure release and the other follows would be more controllable. For example an IWG with a lower volume (and maybe spring weight) followed by a larger volume EWG if you want quicker response but less flow capabilty in the intial cracking of the valves. Vice versa if you want a slower but higher volume reaction on the initial valve cracking. Once one valve stabilzes on a pressure then it fills the second. Just experimental thoughts after the comments on stabiliin the valves if that is something you suspect.

[Matutino]

Imagine 2 air cylinders with the same dynamic and static friction. Same volume and same pressure. They will react to a shared pressure (T) reasonably close if the volume of the airlines is the same. placing the valve and T as close to the cylinders as possible is another precautionary measure. This is how machines doing synchronized fluid power motion start and then you play with it.
A long drop to stability is usuall the (I) or time component in the command/feedback model (PID). The P is how much of a correction to make every I seconds.
tune until instability (overshoot and undershoot the target) then back it off. There is a formula (several) but in the end you stll clean it up by hand most of the time anyways.
it seems like parallel WG would be difficult to setup (not impossible) from the perspective of controlling 2 different things with one set of values.
It seems like serial setup where one leads off the pressure release and the other follows would be more controllable. For example an IWG with a lower volume (and maybe spring weight) followed by a larger volume EWG if you want quicker response but less flow capabilty in the intial cracking of the valves. Vice versa if you want a slower but higher volume reaction on the initial valve cracking. Once one valve stabilzes on a pressure then it fills the second. Just experimental thoughts after the comments on stabiliin the valves if that is something you suspect.

You had me at hello...

[pbonsalb]

Both WG use the same canisters and springs. I believe valves are close in size. Just not sure both are getting correct air flow compared to 1 valve through the T.

[jakermac]

Didn't someone here say they had to cut back the divider in their Steed because it was interfering with their WG?

[chikinhed]

Didn't someone here say they had to cut back the divider in their Steed because it was interfering with their WG?

That's on the Tial WG, shouldn't have to on a TS WG.

[Butters Stoch]

That's on the Tial WG, shouldn't have to on a TS WG.

Its best to leave the manifold alone, and to grind the fire ring on the Tial WG. Doesn't take much, just 2 spots with a carbide bit. Much better to alter/devalue a $15 fire ring than a $1400 manifold.

[chikinhed]

I'm hoping to find the wrong springs in one of the WG's.

[dburt86]

why not just run the tial gate? Ive never seen the EFR gate work properly, ever, in my life, or even heard of it working.

[pbonsalb]

One 44 or 45 alone won't control boost on an efr on the twinscroll manifold unless using the 1.45 9180.

[dburt86]

It will if he's trying to run 25lbs